By Geetaali Malhotra

Abstract:

China’s tariffs on EU pork mark a new phase in trade wars, extending retaliation from industrial goods to food staples. By targeting Europe’s largest exporters, Beijing ties disputes over electric vehicles to a commodity central to its own diet, signalling the politicization of food security. This “porkification” of trade wars echoes U.S. soybean leverage and Russia’s grain diplomacy, with collateral damage falling hardest on import-dependent states in the Global South. As food joins oil as a strategic commodity, urgent debate is needed to shield essentials from great-power rivalry.

Introduction : When Pork becomes Geopolitics: Chinese Tariffs and the Chances for Retaliation on Trade

Trade wars have usually played out in familiar arenas-steel, cars, and semiconductors sectors tied to national power. Food was treated differently, shielded from the turbulence of geopolitics because it was too essential, too close to the everyday lives of citizens. That line has now been crossed. In September 2025, China imposed steep tariffs on EU pork, linking a dietary staple central to its own population with a dispute over electric vehicles. The message is unmistakable: food security is no longer off-limits. What once seemed untouchable has become a tool of retaliation, and with it, the global dining table has entered the theatre of power politics.

The battleground of global trade wars has long been predictable. Steel, automobiles, semiconductors: these were the sectors deemed “strategic,” where tariffs and counter-tariffs played out in familiar cycles. But last week, the trade conflict between China and the European Union (EU) took an unexpected turn. On September 5, 2025, Beijing announced preliminary anti-dumping duties ranging from 15.6 to 62.4 percent on EU pork imports, effective immediately.

On the face of it, the move appears bizarre. Pork is no ordinary Chinese export item, it’s a stalwart, with sales in one year touching close to 59.5 million tonnes and fulfilling more than half the world’s demand. Putting tariffs on such an important import seemingly beckons price inflation, consumer unrest, and potential food security threats. But the move was anything but impulsive. It was a calculated piece of geopolitical theatre, one international political economy scholars can’t ignore.

The Pork Tariffs in Perspective

The EU pork industry, especially in Spain, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, has long relied on China as its largest external market. In 2024, EU pork exports to China exceeded $2 billion, with offal- pig ears, feet, intestines that European consumers largely ignore but Chinese cuisine prizes.

Beijing’s probe into suspected EU dumping practices started back in June 2024, in close proximity to Brussels’s move to put tariffs on Chinese EVs. As the deadline for the probe was stretched until December 2025, not many questioned its retaliatory motives. Now, with duties having been legally imposed in writing, the correlation of EVs with pork is clear for any eye to see: food has entered the world of high-stakes trade retaliation.

Food as an Economic Statecraft Weapon

The weaponization of food is not entirely new. The U.S. has long wielded soybean exports as leverage in its trade disputes with China, while Russia has grain shipments to exert influence over vulnerable states in the Middle East and Africa. But China’s pork duties are distinctive in two ways.

First, they reverse the logic of food security. Rather than isolating a strategic food supply from international conflicts, China has deliberately risked disruption to a commodity at the core of the national diet. It reflects Beijing’s appetite for using even sensitive areas as tradeable.

Second, the choice of pork is politically precise. By targeting Spain, Germany, and Denmark – three of Europe’s largest pork exporters, China is pressuring governments that hold sway in EU trade policymaking. In other words, the tariffs are not just about economics; they are about fracturing European unity in its stance against Chinese industrial policy.

As the Associated Press noted, the responsibilities also underscore Beijing’s ability to discriminate: compliant businesses are subjected to lower tariffs, giving European producers a reason to comply with Chinese authorities, while pressing their own governments to lift EU limits on Chinese electric vehicles.

The “Porkification” of Trade Wars

Political economists like Albert Hirschman once wrote of a “national power of trade”: the concept that economic interconnectedness generates political leverage. In the 20th century, this largely meant industrial goods. In the 21st century, it increasingly means food.

What we are seeing in China’s pork tariffs is what can only be described as the “porkification” of trade wars: the growth of retaliation into common daily goods previously deemed too far out of bounds. The symbolism is strong: when dining tables become a bargaining item, the personal becomes geopolitical.

This is not a phenomenon limited to China and the EU. India restricted rice exports, claiming domestic price inflation worries but causing price shocks throughout Africa and Southeast Asia. Russia has been playing a game of cat-and-mouse with shipments of grain via the Black Sea, causing confusion among import-dependent buyers. Even America has been no stranger to the use of soybeans as a trade war retaliatory instrument against Beijing.

In each case, the same pattern emerges: foodstuffs, hitherto excluded from great-power competition via an unofficial rule of exception, are today summoned into competition as instruments of leverage.

Collateral Damage

The immediate victims of these food-driven trade wars are rarely the major powers imposing tariffs. Instead, it is often countries in the Global South – states with limited agricultural capacity and high reliance on imports that bear the brunt of price volatility. As China and the EU spar over pork, ripple effects in global markets may increase prices for non- Chinese buyers, distorting supply chains in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. For scholars of development and food security, the lesson is clear: the geopolitics of food cannot be divorced from questions of equity and justice in the global economy.

What Can Be Done?

WTO is ill placed to deal with this newfound age of trade war. Whilst the EU already questioned the legality of China’s inquiry, the procedures of the WTO are notoriously slow, and any verdict may well come too late to serve any political objectives of retaliation.

A new multilateral discussion on the extent of retaliation is called for. As illegal in war as chemical warfare is, academics and policy elites need to confront the question of delinking certain sectors, in particular life-essential food staples from collateral for great power geopolitical competition. Without such norms, globalisation of the food trade risks falling victim to great power geopolitics.

Conclusion: From Oil to Pork

From Oil to Pork Throughout the 20th century, oil has been the very definition of a “strategic commodity,” defining war, alliances, and world markets. In the 21st century, now, food fits that description. China’s pork tariffs are a foretaste of just how far interdependence has been politicized. “Porkification” of trade wars forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: can the world afford to turn food into a retaliatory tool again? What does the world turn out to be when food security is not excluded from geopolitical competition? And most urgently, who loses when superpowers turn dining plates into weapons? While in our time power is not only applied in armies but also in tariffs, pork is not pork anymore. It is power.

About the author:

Geetaali Malhotra is a third-year B.Sc. (Hons.) Economics student, pursuing a minor in International Affairs and Diplomacy. She is a writer and analyst specialising in political economy, macroeconomics and economic policy.

Image Source: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/veterinarian-doctor-examining-pigs-pig-farm-29003694.jpg?w=768